Traps are a classic element of D&D games. but I am a bit bored with how they work.
>roll to detect
>roll to disarm
it's nothing but a timesink.
Do you know of any traps that are more in the way of the players out-thinking it?
also: fun and creatie trap thread!
No, not THAT kind of trap!
Marriage.
Loans.
Overthinking.
>Do you know of any traps that are more in the way of the players out-thinking it?
Puzzles.
...
Perhaps a riddle or some type of puzzle based trap? As in, they've already activated it, but whoever built the place believed in "fair play" and always left a chance for people to avoid their traps if they can think a way out of it.
You are the one that rolls, not the player, and they shouldn't know it's disarmed until they spring it.
Try traps that cannot be disarmed, or the disarming point is further into the trap itself. Have them spend resources to disarm it. That swinging blade? They'll have to jam a sword into the mechanism or sunder it as it strikes.
And have traps be given two layers of trap. Bam, you fall into a pit, take the ladder ou- uh-oh, there's a pit in front of the ladder. Or some monkeybars, and one of them is rigged to a swinging blade that cannot be avoided without letting go.
How about this, post the most assholeish trap you got.
AD&D style.
Isn't there the "book of traps" out there?
It gives some good ideas, but I think they are all somewhat deadly.
The whole detect etc is frankly stupid, do you mean I can't see hear or touch? I need to roll dice to be able to do those things?
I guess some pictures help, since it will be harder to describe every minute detail without wasting said time.
If you create a puzzle that requires thinking, what's to stop players from just demanding to roll a mental-related stat or skill to solve it? They made a smart character to be good at this kind of thing, after all, just like the rogue wanted to be good at disarming traps. Whether the player actually has any capability to disarm a tripwire or pick a lock has as much bearing on their character's ability to do so as the player's ability to smoothtalk ladies does on persuasion checks.
This is the problem with having metrics for anything other than actions involving gross physical ability (Raw Strength or Intellect, Perception) or requiring training/practice/knowledge (Martial Ability, Spellcasting, Lockpicking, Hacking). A lot of interesting situations get boiled down to a roll, and if they don't, players who invested into that skill feel cheated. The best you can do is compromise and say that players can succeed in skill-related endeavors based upon their in-character actions rather than (or with help from) a roll, while still allowing them to go full auto-pilot with rolls if they so choose in return for a lesser degree of fine control over the outcome (ie. you succeed, but only along the most narrow interpretation of what the player says they roll for).
In classic D&D you didn't get to just "make a check". You actually had to describe what part of the room you were searching and describe how you went about looking for a trap, and it was up to the DM to decide whether or not you find or spring it. The classic example is finding a hallway where a trapped tile is suspected, and the PCs get some water from earlier in the dungeon and pour it down the hallway to see if it pools around any particular area.
As someone else already said, the DM should be rolling trapfinding checks in secret.
Just roll persuasion. why talk to people?
I liked what my DM did in one(and literally my only session of a TTRPGS ever) session. A couple of people got murdered in this small village that I, the druid, lived near. My character had a relationship with the village(and when I pointed it out) so when I was talking to someone, trying to convince them to tell us about something, he said he'd add a bonus to whatever I rolled in persuade. In the end, I rolled something pretty low, but I still thought that was cool.
I find the best traps are big one's that have some sort of timer involved ie the room starts to fill with water, a fuse becomes lit, the room starts to heat up etc.
Then slowly reveal the mechanisms of the trap so that the challenge for the players is to figure out the mechanism and then disarm it. This usually uses up resources and occasionally results in damage.
> If you create a puzzle that requires thinking, what's to stop players from just demanding to roll a mental-related stat or skill to solve it?
Not having a mental-related stat in your system?
Having intelligence and wisdom as stats is cancer.
Perception? Sure. Reaction? Okay, why not. Intelligence and/or wisdom? Fucking cancer.
Just because it's a classic element of D&D doesn't mean it isn't stupid. Just remove them entirely, if no one wants to play a rogue no one should have to.
This is bait is interesting, but I'm gonna answer it anyway.
The player is "Rolling to Detect Traps" because he wants to examine the room/item/macguffin closely for hidden traps without triggering them. The DM still rolls in secret for everyone. Not all traps can be disarmed. Traps are also not meant to be "fun" in the traditional sense- they're there to give another dynamic (read: Padding and Danger) to purposely deter intruders, which includes the Players.
Alternatively, you can stop calling yourself a DM/GM and have your players start referring to you as "That Dense Fuck Who Can't Read."
makes me think of that picture of the lone rope hanging in a circular room with a door on each side with a cutaway showing that under the hemp of the rope are long hooked barbs waiting for some poor adventurer to jump and grab it to swing across
>Try to solve it yourself.
a)
>Wrong, wrong... Stumped? Roll then.
b)
>That's right, have a cookie
It's either this
Or don't use traps more than once in a while.
Making a roll to determine skill outcomes is among the more boring innovations of 3rd edition.
It's unfortunate that there's a whole class whose niche partly relies on being the "trap guy", but one can always give the rogue something else to make up for that.
Grimtooth has come up with some mean shit.
>The player is "Rolling to Detect Traps" because he wants to examine the room/item/macguffin closely for hidden traps without triggering them
Then maybe, and I say maybe, the player could simply say that he's examining the room/item/macguffin closely and without touching any of it ?
Also, OP isn't questioning the concept of traps in themselves, but merely D&D's approach as to how to interact with them, You Dense Fuck Who Can't Read.